# FILED Oct ob er 4 , 199 5 Cec il Crow son , Jr . Ap p e l l a te C o u rt C l e rk IN T HE C OU RTOF C RI MI NA L A PPEA LS OF T EN NE SSEE

A T N ASHVILLE M A Y 1995 SESSI ON

DA VID E. CA MPBELL, ) ) C. C. A. N o. 01 C01 -9 209- CR -0 0266 Ap pel lan t, ) ) Dav ids on C ounty V. ) ) Ho n . W a lt e r C. Ku rt z, Ju d ge ) STA TE OF T EN NE SSEE, ) (P ost -C onv icti on) ) Ap pel lee . ) FO R THE A PPELLA NT: FO R THE A PPELLE E: Anne C . M arti n Cha rl es W . Bu rs on Dodso n, Pa rker & Behm Atto rney General & Repo rter Atto rn ey s a t Law 306 G ay Street, Sui te 40 0 Chr is ti na S. Shev ali er Nas hv il le, TN 37201 Ass is tant Atto rn ey Gene ra l Cr imi nal Ju sti ce Di v is ion 450 J ames R ober

tso n Par kw ay Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0943 Vi cto r S. ( Torr

y ) Johns on II I Di str ict Attor ney

Gene ra l Ky mberl y

L. A. H attaway Ass t. Di st. Att or ney

Gene ra l W ashin gton Square 222 2nd Av e. N , Su it e 500 Nas hv il le, TN 37201- 1649 OPIN ION F ILED :

_________ _________

_ A FF IR ME D PA ULG. SU MM ER S, Ju d ge-2- O P I N I O N The appel lan t, Dav id Campbe ll , pl ed g uil ty i n the D av ids on C ounty Cr imi nal C our

t t o s econd -d eg re e murder i n J anuar

y 1988. H e w as sent enced to forty-tw o y ears c onfinement. H e fil ed a post -c onv icti on reli ef peti ti on al leg ing that his or ig ina l tr ial l awy er w ho represent ed hi m dur ing the ple a proces s was ine ffect iv e. The tr ial co urt hel d an ev ide nti ar y hear ing and deni ed appe ll ant re li ef. C ampbel l now

appeal s t o thi s C our

t. W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt' s d is mis sal of the pos t- conv icti on reli ef peti ti on. Campbe ll tes ti fied athi s h ear ing . Cha rg ed w it h a c o- defendant, he e n t e re d a gu il ty p le a t o se c o n d -d e gre e m u rd e r. Hi s co -d e fe n d a n twa s u lt im a t e ly conv icted a nd recei v ed a sent ence of li fe plus fifteen y ears. C ampbel l all eg ed that his l awy er

w as ine ffect iv e, ho w ev er , C ampbel l' s p ro of did not s ubst anti ate his allegation . He intertw ined an allegation thatas a result of the lawy er's ine ffect iv eness , hi s p lea w as not rendered v olu ntar il y . Nei ther the proof nor the rec ord s ub s ta nt i at es h i s c l ai m. Hi s for mer attor ney

tes ti fied atthe hear ing . Cou nsel remembere d tha t he w as appoi nted to representC ampbel l at t ri al. Al thoug h c ounse l did not reme mb er several of th e spe cif ics of the case he did relat e as follows:
I ' ve gi ve n itso m e t h o u gh ta n d I ca n sa y ca t e go ri c a ll y t h a tI h a ve nev er wor ked any

harder on a ny ca se, on a ny

cl ien t, any

defendant I' v e ev er represent ed th an on Dav id Campbe ll . This . . . ca se w ent on forev er . At o ne poi nt w e w ent a ll the w ay to the p oin t of tr ial . [The tr ial jud g e] di d r ule on t he s uppress ion moti on after a l eng thy

hear ing and ev en a br ief bei ng fil ed. W e actual ly

ca me i nto c our

t and w ere prepared to g o to tr ial w it h b o t h t h e c o - d e fe n d a n ta n d M r . C a mp b e l l o n t h e s a me d a y . A n d i f I re c a ll itco rr e c t ly, I ca m e a c ro s s so m e so rto f wa y o f ge t t in g t h e two sev ered w hic h c aused a l ot of c onst er nati on for ev er y one atthe las t moment and s o fort unatel y they w ere s ev ered. And [ the prosec utor

] el ect ed to g o forw ard i n the co -d efendant's ca se. O f course he wound up g etti ng l ife pl us fifteen.-3- In an y ca se, to answ er

y our q uest ion , I don' t recal l how many ti mes I met w it h D av id, but I met w it h D av id many , many , many ti mes. Dav id w as a di ff ic ultperson to de al w it h. The record s hows t hat c ounse l inv est ig ated the c ase, fil ed moti ons, and a rg u e d p re t r i a l i s s u e s o n b e h a l f o f C a mp b e l l . H e fi l e d a b r i e f i n s u p p o rto f a moti on to su ppress . Fac ed w it h C ampbel l' s i ncr imi nator y st atement to t he pol ic e, t he tr ial l awy er

neg oti ated a g uil ty

pl ea for Campbe ll w hic h w as re lat ed to Campbe ll i n a p ain sta ki ng manner . The la wy er tes ti fied atthe hear ing thathe "d i d ev er yth i ng h um an l y

p os s i bl e to p rot ect M r . C am pb el l ' s i nt eres ts a nd my int erest s."
Al thoug h the record s hows t hat C ampbel l is so mew hat i ll it erate, he has int ell ig ence. H e c ertai nly i s n ot s tupi d or

i g norant. The record rev eal s t hat, accord ing to his lawy er, Cam pbe ll i s a dif f icult person to represe nt. T he reco rd als o i ndi cat es that Campbe ll has had in- depth inv olv ement w it h the cr imi nal j us ti c e s y s te m b efo re an d s ee ms t o un de rs ta nd w ha t i s h ap pe ni ng t o hi m. Cou nsel rela ted t hat a fter C ampbel l' s c o- defendant w as conv icted, he feared t hat t he c o- defendant woul d tes ti fy ag ain st Campbe ll . Fur ther more, coun sel w as con cerne d tha t the co-defend ant , having not hing to lose an d in retaliat ion, would ma ke sure th at Cam pbe ll g ot a stif f sente nce a s w ell. Campbe ll al so cont ends that his tr ial att or ney fail ed to preser

v e the suppress ion i ss ue as a c erti fied q uest ion of law pursuantto Rul e 37 of the Tenness ee R ule s o f Cr imi nal Procedu re . Rul e 37 prov ide s, in par t, that a cr imi nal defendant mayappeal from any j udg ment or

co nv icti on upon a pl ea of g uil ty i f the "[d] efendant ex pli ci tl y reser v ed, w it h the co nsentof the [ tr ial ] c our t, the r ig ht t o appea l a c erti fied q uest ion of law [w hic h] i s d is posi ti v e of the cas e." See Tenn. R. Cr im.P . 37( b) (2 )( iv ). Atthe post -c onv icti on ev ide nti ar y hear ing , t ri al couns el tes ti fied th at t he s uppress ion i ss ue w as not d is posi ti v e of the cas e.-4- Fur ther more, co unsel tes ti fied atthe post -c onv icti on ev ide nti ar y hear ing thathe felt t hat t he tr ial j udg e "probabl y w as cor re ct" in deny ing the moti on to su ppress . The record furt her

sh ows t hat t he s tate had i ndependen t ev ide nce in addi ti on to Campbe ll 's st atement to t he aut hor it ies w hic h woul d hav e c or ro borated the c odefend ant 's testim ony had Cam pbe ll g one on to trial. The tr ial j udg e at the e v ide nti ar y hear ing on t he pos t- conv icti on pet it ion accred ited th e lawy er's testim ony as oppo sed to Camp bell's testim ony. He found that Campbe ll had not p ro v en hi s a ll eg ati ons of ineffectiv e as si sta nce of couns el and i nv olu ntar y pl ea by a preponderance of the ev ide nce. H e found tha t Cam pbe ll was no t pressure d into plead ing g uilty and thathis w as no t a case und er Rule 37 which would have been a dispositive app eal. Se e Rule 37 (b)(2); see als o St ate v . Prest on, 7 59 S. W .2d 6 47, 6 50 ( Tenn. 1988 ). I f the tr ial co unsel coul d nothav e preser

v ed hi s i ss ue pursuantto Rul e 37, then obv iou sl y he was not i n er ro r by

fail ing to do s o. T h e a p p ro p ri a t e t e s tfo r d e t e rm in in g wh e t h e r c o u n s e l p ro vid e d e f fe c t ive ass is tanc e at tr ial i s w hether hi s o r her

per formance w as w it hin the ra ng e of compet ence demanded o f attor ney s i n c ri minal ca ses . Baxter v . R ose, 523 S.W .2d 9 30 ( Tenn. 1975 ). U nder Str ic kl and v . W ashi ng ton, 466 U .S. 668, 687 (1 984) , t he U nit ed St ates Supreme C our t pl aces the burden on the a ppel lan t t o show that : (1 ) the represent ati on w as defici ent w hic h req uires a s how ing that coun sel ma de e rrors so serious thatshe or he was not f unct ioning as "co unse l" as g uaranteed a defendant by the Si xth A mendment, and ( 2) the defici ent re present ati on preju dic ed th e defense to t he poi nt of depr iv ing the defendant of a fair tr ial w it h a reli abl e resul t. To su cc eed on his cl aim, appel lan t mus t s how that there i s a "reason abl e probabi li ty ," w hic h i s a probabi li ty su ff ic ien t t o under mine confide nce in the o utc ome, t hat, but for the couns el' s u nprofessi onal er ro rs , t he resul ts of the proceed ing w oul d hav e been different. I d. at694. The burden rest s o n the appel lan t t o prov e hi s a ll eg ati ons by a preponderance of the-5- evidence. Long v . Stat e, 51 0 S.W .2d 83, 86 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p. 19 74). W e also do notus e the benefitof hin dsi g ht t o ei ther se cond- g uess tr ial st ra teg y by couns el or

cr it ic iz e c ounse l' s t act ic s. Sta te v . M arti n, 62 7 S. W .2d 1 39, 1 42 (Te nn. Cri m. App. 198 1).
In H il l v . Loc khar

t, 474 U .S. 52 ( 1985) , t he Sup re me C our t app li ed th e Str ic kl and tw o- par

t s tandard to ine ffect iv e as si sta nce of couns el cl aims ar is ing out o f the pl ea proces s. The C our t i n H il l modified the "preju dic e" req uirement by statin g tha t "th e de fend antmustshow tha t, bu t for coun sel's errors he w ould not h av e pl eaded g uil ty and w oul d hav e i nsi ste d on g oin g to tr ial ." Id. at 59 . In po st- conv icti on proceed ing s, the p eti ti oner has the burden of prov ing t h e a ll e ga t io n s in h is p e t it io n b y a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f t h e e vid e n c e . Mc B e e v. St a te , 6 5 5 S. W .2 d 19 1 , 1 9 5 (T e n n . Cr im . A p p . 1 9 8 3 ). Furth e rm o re , t h e f in d in gs of the tr ial co urt i n pos t- conv icti on hear ing s a re co ncl usi v e on appeal unl ess the ev ide nce preponderates ag ain st the j udg ment. Sta te v . Bu ford, 666 S. W .2d 4 73, 47 5 ( Ten n. C r i m. A pp . 19 83 ) ; C l en ny v . St at e, 5 76 S .W .2 d 12 , 14 ( Ten n. C r i m. App . 197 8). Campbe ll di d notca rr

y hi s b urden of prov ing the all eg ati ons in his peti ti on. The hear ing j udg e c hose to ac credi t t he l awy er 's tes ti mony ov er thatof the peti ti oner . That i s t he tr ial j udg e's prerog ati v e. W e find that the e v ide nce does not p re ponderate a g ain st the p ost -c onv icti on findi ng s o f the tr ial co urt. W e, the refore, af

f irm the dismissal in all respect s. A FF IR ME D-6- _________ _________

_________

___ PAU L G. SU MM ER S, J UD GE CONCUR:

_________

_________

_________

_________

_ JOE B. JON ES, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

_________

_ ALLEN R . C OR NE LIU S, J R. , SP EC IAL JU DG E